Huh????
Posted on 11/12/2007 2:49:24 PM PST by nsmart
(11/6) Which one of the following candidates should pro-life conservatives rally behind to defeat the liberal abortionists Hillary and Giuliani?
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
A return to the Constitution. How does that set up a bogeyman?
“Which one of the following candidates should pro-life conservatives rally behind to defeat the liberal abortionists Hillary and Giuliani?”
I am not really sure truly “pro-life” conservatives will have one candidate they can or will rally around, if a “repealing roe v wade” position is the litmus test. They may need to focus more on the general judicial sentiment and other policy positions of the Candidates. That statement is not an argument against a really stroing pro-life that position. It simply comes from a recognition, my own, that none of the top candidates are that “pure” on the issue.
And, if I am right, I hope “pro-life conservatives” consider the cost the nation could incur, in hundreds of other ways (judicial appointments alone), if a lack of ability to “rally around” one GOP “pro-life” candidate leads many of them to take a “non-of-the-above” course that many GOPers did in the 2006 Congressional elections (over issues like illegal immigration and spending). Is anyone better off for the fact that GOP voter turnout was depressed somewhat over those issues? No.
Let’s not make that mistake this time.
While I would prefer a SCOTUS that reverses Roe-v-Wade and while I believe that would be the best course, in many ways, I accept an originalist and federalist view on the issue; which would be a limited federal amendment that denies the “abortion” issue as within any federal mandate to prescribe, one way or another, by Congress or the federal courts.
It would nullify Roe-v-Wade and return the decision to what prevailed under the state laws, before Roe-v-Wade. I think the conservative pro-life position would obtain majority support in a majority of states - if it was left to the states to decide. Yes, that’s a compromise from an all or nothing position, but I bet you could get 100% support from the GOP candidates.
I wouldn’t be happy about Huckabee (and I think he is far more likely to be the running mate than the nominee), but I could vote for him over the ‘Rat (who I am thinking probably WON’T be Hillary).
Thanks for your common-sense approach to Ron Paul. He may support our positions on everything else, but his failure to commit to national survival renders those opinions irrelevant.
Jim,
That is very rude. You have met me. I’m a 64 year old grandmother. I can’t believe you would use this language.
Are you really afraid of words? Ron Paul appeared on Alex Jones radio show when no one in the MSM would interview him and he never signed on to any conspiracy ideas. Was he supposed to sit quietly and never get on the air? And is it wrong to speak with all segments of America — or are you only supposed to speak with those who agree with you lock step?
How does surrendering American interests around the globe "provide for the common defence" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"?
Are you going to actually pretend that the 1876 bills that Ron Paul Co sponsored were all constitutional? Honestly? Often, I change my mind when presented with facts. What do you do? Ron Paul is telling you what you want to hear. LOOK at his record. How 'bout his earmark of 13 million for the NAFTA hwy? Constitutional? Why did he vote against troops on the border?
I am still not sure whether Hillary will be the candidate. I would sure not say she is anywhere near to not being the candidate.
This IS for sure. There is a lot of time left and many, many revelations and mistakes all of these candidates can make, or have yet to make.
I suppose the problem with being so far out yet, is that it is almost impossible to predict what may happen.
It is true that by having these primaries so early, it is really more frightening to think about what might come of the candidate who wins in the early going.
Heaven help us.
That is so astute. Ron Paul is bringing a lot of young people and a lot of independents to the Republican party. You see signs at his events saying ‘Dr. Paul, You Cured my Apathy’.
Rather than limit GOPers to that small segment who totally agree on all issues, the GOP should be welcoming the Ron Paul army of supporters. He had over 5000 in Philly. People drive from all over to hear him. Its really amazing. And he is offering them ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in personal benefits from his presidency.. only a return to the Constitution. He carries one in his pocket.
You can probably verify this on Michael Reagans website. Today he said he has invited Ron Paul to appear on his radio show 10 to 20 times. He won't. WHY?
We have discussed this already. Any congress critter has to bring home the highway funds. Are the interstates in his district supposed to be overrun with weeds? NO!
And Troops on the border is unconstitutional.
If it makes you feel better, the last time a non-incumbent Democrat who had not previously been president and who was the front runner for the nomination a year out from the convention went on to get nominated and actually win the election was in 1828 when Andrew Jackson won.
Look, lady (now that you’ve introduced yourself). How many times do I have to tell you that I am NOT interested in Ron Paul’s antiwar moonbatism. Can’t you take a hint? As far as I’m concerned, he’s allied with the enemy within. And I do not appreciate Ron Paul’s spam monkeys wasting our time and resources. Why don’t you take your obnoxious spam to some forum that might appreciate it? Might I suggest Alex Jones’ moonbats-R-us.com?
Huh????
Where is that in the Constitution?
“or are you only supposed to speak with those who agree with you lock step?”
Take a hint and get a life.
My answer to moonbat malcontents:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Well, I don’t know why he hasn’t been on “Michael Reagans” show. My local radio clearchannel host asked to have Paul on his show. I got a phone number for him at the campaign headquarters and the host phoned. He had to put in a formal request and they said they would get back to him. Has Reagan done that?
Paul is not a person to dodge controversy so I can’t imagine he knows of the offer. He also does not participate in the Hillary (or any other candidate) bashing. He prefers to discuss issues.
playing the old grandmother trick doesn't validate you or support your twisted views....it makes you a victim that advocates for a moonbat.
Quartering troops in private homes is, but troops have been called out several times inside the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.